Disf  ranchisement  of 


Negroes 

By  THE  REV.  JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES 


H TS*ock 

dap.  rc^ 

cTkc  Disf  ranchisement  of 
Negroes 

By  THE  REV.  JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES 


THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  NEGRO 

HE  condition  of  the  Negro  in  the  South  to-day  is  an 
unspeakable  disgrace  to  that  American  civilization  of 
ours  which  we  are  fond  of  describing  as  founded  upon  the 
basic  principle  that  “all  men  are  created  free  and  equal,’’ 
and  it  is  destined  to  be,  I believe,  centuries  hence,  one  of 
the  wonders  of  human  history  that  in  the  face  of  the  oppres- 
sion which  is  being  visited  upon  ten  millions  and  more  of  our  fellow-citizens 
at  this  moment,  the  rest  of  us  are  content  to  remain  silent  and  indifferent. 

The  political  freedom  of  the  black  man  in  this  country  was  purchased 
at  a price  which  staggered  the  world.  Blood  was  poured  forth  like  water, 
treasure  was  expended  at  the  rate  of  millions  a day,  not  in  order  merely  that 
the  Union  might  be  preserved,  but,  more,  that  the  Negro  might  be  eman- 
cipated from  the  bonds  of  chattel  slavery,  and  a government  of  the  people, 
for  the  people  and  by  the  people  might  for  the  first  time  be  established  upon 
the  earth. 

A full  half  century  has  passed  away  since  that  momentous  struggle 
was  completed,  and  yet  to-day,  when  we  turn  to  the  South  and  ask  regarding 
the  condition  of  our  black  brother,  for  whose  freedom  our  fathers  paid  so 
dearly,  we  find  that  his  condition  is  little  better  than  that  of  his  father,  who 
was  bought  and  sold  upon  the  block.  “The  Negro  to-day,’’  says  an  influential 
New  York  clergyman,  “is  free  on  paper,  the  black  man  is  one  of  our  fellow- 
zens  in  theory.  He  is  reckoned  as  a man  and  not  as  an  animal  on  the 
tables  of  the  United  States  census.’’  But,  as  a matter  of  fact,  in  the  everyday 
world  of  practical  affairs,  the  Negro  is  still  a slave,  and  if  there  is  anything 
that  is  perfectly  plain  in  the  public  sentiment  of  the  South,  it  is  that  the  Negro 
shall  be  made  to  keep  that  place  of  shameful  subjection  from  which  we 
believed  that  he  had  been  rescued  by  the  blood  and  fury  of  the  great  rebellion. 
He  is  denied  the  ballot.  He  is  socially  ostracized.  He  is  excluded  from 
public  buildings,  railroad  stations,  libraries  and  theatres.  He  is  denied  justice 
in  our  courts.  He  is  held  as  a peon  on  countless  plantations.  He  is  oppressed, 
degraded,  enslaved  in  every  political,  industrial  and  social  relation. 


THE  FEAR  OF  AGITATION 

And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  unspeakable  situation,  we  find  the  people  of 
the  North  indifferent  and  complacent,  and  whenever  any  brave  man  arises  to 
speak  his  condemnation  of  this  iniquity,  he  is  denounced  as  a careless  agitator 
and  ignorant  fanatic.  On  every  hand  we  are  being  told  that  the  Negro 
question  is  too  delicate  for  public  discussion,  and  that  we  must  leave  this 
problem  to  be  worked  out  naturally  and  quietly  by  the  passage  of  time.  We 
are  told  that  to  discuss  this  question  upon  a basis  of  simple  justice  will  hurt 
business — as  though  business  were  of  any  importance  when  the  life,  liberty 
and  happiness  of  millions  of  human  beings  are  at  stake.  We  are  told  that  to 
discuss  this  question  will  offend  the  Southern  whites — as  though  it  were  not 
our  duty  to  offend  them  when  they  are  the  arrogant  and  blinded  oppressors 
of  an  entire  people.  Are  they  not  offending  us,  I should  like  to  know,  by 
their  denial  to  the  black  man  of  those  rights  of  industrial  opportunity  and 
political  independence  which  have  been  bought  and  paid  for  by  the  blood 
of  tens  of  thousands  of  heroic  men?  We  are  told  that  to  discuss  this  question 
at  the  present  time  is  inexpedient — as  though  expediency  should  ever  be  con- 
sulted when  “wrong  rules  the  land  and  waiting  justice  sleeps.”  The  truth  of 
the  matter  is  that  there  is  but  one  thing  to  be  considered  here,  and  that  is  that 
ten  millions  and  more  of  our  fellow-citizens  are  being  denied  those  rights  and 
privileges  which  are  legally  and  morally  theirs,  and  any  man  who  is  silent 
in  the  face  of  this  oppression  is  himself  a partner  to  the  crime  which  is  being 
committed.  Business,  the  feelings  of  our  Southern  fellow-citizens,  questions 
of  expediency — all  these  things  must  be  cast  aside  once  and  for  all,  and  like 
the  Hebrew  prophets  of  old,  we  must  lift  up  our  voices  and  spare  not!  It  is 
with  the  Negro  question  as  with  every  other  great  social  question  of  our  time. 

THE  WIDE  DEMAND  FOR  JUSTICE 

We  are  living  in  an  age  which  is  characterized  by  a growing  demand 
for  social  justice.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  world  was  there  a time  when 
people  were  so  eager  for  such  readjustment  of  social  conditions  that  high  and 
low,  rich  and  poor,  capitalist  and  laborer,  shall  be  placed  upon  a plane  of 
equal  privilege  and  opportunity.  Justice  is  the  great  battle  cry  of  the  hour. 
We  are  declaring  that  justice  must  be  done  to  the  laboring  man  who  is  injured 
in  the  performance  of  his  duty,  and  therefore  Employers’  Liability  Bills  are 
being  introduced  into  all  of  our  Legislatures.  We  are  being  told  that  justice 
must  be  done  to  little  boys  and  little  girls,  and  therefore  we  are  demanding 
that  child  labor  shall  be  abolished.  We  are  being  told  that  justice  must  be 
done  to  the  criminal,  and  therefore  we  are  seeking  great  reforms  in  penal 
legislation  and  administration.  We  are  being  told  that  justice  must  be  done 
to  those  who  do  the  work  of  the  world,  and  therefore  we  are  fighting  for  an 

4 


eight-hour  day,  for  the  abolition  of  the  wage  system,  for  the  public  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution.  We  are  being  told  that  justice 
must  be  done  in  the  acquisition  and  distribution  of  wealth,  and  therefore  we  are 
seeking  vital  reforms  in  our  systems  of  taxation,  so  that  the  poor  man  shall  not 
be  taxed  of  his  poverty,  and  the  rich  man  shall  be  made  to  pay  those  taxes 
which  he  ought  and  is  able  to  pay.  We  are  demanding  all  of  these  great 
changes  in  society  because  it  is  just  that  they  should  come.  And  we  are 
demanding  that  this  justice  should  be  done,  not  in  the  dim  and  distant  future, 
but  to-morrow.  And  why,  I ask  you,  does  not  the  same  thing  hold  true  in  our 
treatment  of  the  black  man?  Here  is  injustice  of  the  grossest  kind — here  is 
social  inequity  of  the  worst  description — and  why,  in  the  name  of  common 
sense,  should  this  particular  problem  of  justice  be  indefinitely  postponed,  while 
all  others  are  demanding  and  receiving  immediate  and  uncompromising 
consideration? 

We  are  face  to  face  here,  after  all,  with  a second  great  struggle  for  the 
emancipation  of  an  enslaved  people,  and  in  this  second  struggle  we  must  take 
as  our  motto  the  words  which  were  made  immortal  by  the  great  abolitionist 
who  was  the  leader  of  the  first  great  fight  for  liberty  here  in  America:  “I  am 
in  earnest,  I will  not  equivocate,  I will  not  excuse,  I will  not  retreat  a single 
inch,  I will  be  heard.”  If  this  is  to  be  the  spirit  of  this  National  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Colored  People,  as  I believe  that  it  is,  its  work  is  the 
work  of  God,  and  even  though  its  numbers  may  at  first  be  few,  it  may  content 
and  strengthen  itself  with  the  thought  that  its  two  or  three  on  the  side  of  God 
are  the  majority. 

THE  ENFRANCHISEMENT  OF  THE  NEGRO 

The  new  enslavement  of  the  Negro  manifests  itself  in  strange  and 
various  forms,  but  perhaps  the  most  cruel  and  inexcusable  of  them  all  is  that 
which  we  know  as  disfranchisement.  No  sooner  had  the  Negro  been  freed 
by  the  1 3th  amendment  to  the  Constitution  than  at  once  inquiry  arose  as  to 
whether  he  should  be  enfranchised.  The  answer  was  not  slow  in  coming,  for, 
on  February  13,  1868,  Congress  passed  the  15th  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution and  on  March  30,  1870,  this  was  declared  ratified  by  the  necessary 
three-fourths  of  the  States.  ‘‘The  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
to  vote,”  the  amendment  read,  ‘‘shall  not  be  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or 
by  any  State,  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.” 
Since  the  passing  of  this  amendment,  Negro  suffrage  has  entered  upon  three 
distinct  stages,  each  one  of  which  we  must  briefly  describe. 

The  first  period,  which  lasted  ten  years — till  the  spring  of  1877 — 
is  best  characterized  as  the  period  of  Negro  domination.  It  is  a gloomy  and 
disheartening  picture  which  we  are  obliged  to  contemplate.  The  Negro,  just 
freed  from  slavery,  as  unfit  for  the  duties  of  responsible  citizenship  as  a little 


child,  was  suddenly  placed  in  full  control  of  the  State  Governments  of  the 
South,  and  the  result  was,  of  course,  deplorable.  Everywhere  were  misrule 
and  corruption,  marked  by  incompetence  on  the  part  of  the  black  man,  and 
extravagance  and  greed  on  the  part  of  the  white  man.  The  memory  of  those 
frightful  “carpet-bag”  days  still  haunts  the  South,  and  stands  to-day  as  the 
most  persuasive  argument  against  the  extension  of  Negro  suffrage.  In  spite  of 
all  the  misery  of  this  period,  however,  this  much  must  be  said  in  behalf  of 
the  ignorant  Negro,  unexpectedly  confronted  with  the  problems  of  government 
— that  had  the  Southern  whites  themselves  undertaken,  patiently  and  courage- 
ously, the  political  leadership  of  the  colored  people,  instead  of  sulking  in 
their  tents  like  the  Homeric  Achilles,  and  leaving  them  a prey  to  the 
unscrupulous  adventurers  who  swarmed  from  the  North  like  vultures,  the  story 
of  this  epoch  of  Negro  domination  would  have  been  far  different.  As  it  was, 
business  interests  were  ruined,  the  old  order  of  society  shattered,  and  all 
political  divisions  deranged.  Such  a state  of  things  could  not  last.  But  the 
remedy  was  worse  than  the  disease.  Instead  of  using  moral  force,  brute  force 
was  adopted  as  the  instrument  for  securing  white  supremacy.  Colored  voters 
were  intimidated  and  threatened,  ballot  boxes  were  systematically  stuffed,  and 
forgery  of  tally  sheets  openly  practised.  Thus  State  after  State  was  reclaimed, 
and  when,  in  1877,  President  Hayes  recognized  these  white  State  govern- 
ments, Negro  rule  was  a thing  of  the  past. 

ILLEGAL  DISFRANCHISEMENT 

Herewith  began  the  second  period  of  Negro  suffrage,  which  lasted  till 
1890.  This  is  the  period  of  the  illegal  disfranchisement  of  the  Negro.  The 
whites,  now  lords  of  all,  were  determined  to  retain  what  they  had  won.  The 
means  employed  to  this  end  were  violence  against  the  blacks,  fraud  at  the 
voting  booths,  political,  social  and  business  ostracism  of  all  the  whites  who  in 
any  way  showed  sympathy  for  the  Negro.  The  “white-cappers”  and  the 
Ku-Klux  clan  performed  their  terrible  work.  But  such  a state  of  practical 
anarchy  could  not  long  endure.  The  whites  wearied  of  violence  and  fraud — 
in  Senator  Tillman’s  graphic  words,  “We’ve  cheated  the  niggers,  we’ve 
threatened  them,  we’ve  murdered  them — and  now  we’re  going  to  disfranchise 
them.”  In  truth,  legal  disfranchisement  of  the  Negro  seemed  the  only  path 
open  to  the  South,  and,  in  1890,  the  third  period  of  Negro  suffrage  began, 
which  is  one  phase  of  that  new  enslavement  of  the  black  man  which  is 
to-day  the  crying  shame  of  our  Republic. 

ATTEMPTS  AT  LEGAL  DISFRANCHISEMENT 

Mississippi  was  the  first  State  to  disfranchise  her  Negro  voters  by  legal 
enactments.  This  was  accomplished  in  1 890  by  a constitutional  convention. 
South  Carolina  followed  the  example  of  her  sister  State  in  1895,  Louisiana 
in  1897,  North  Carolina  in  1900,  Virginia  in  1902,  Alabama  in  1904,  and 


other  Southern  States  have  lately  joined,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  Maryland  and 
Oklahoma,  seem  on  the  point  of  joining,  this  melancholy  procession.  In  all  these 
States  disqualification  of  the  Negro  voter  has  been  based  upon  illiteracy — the 
test  of  reading  and  writing.  But  when  this  scheme  was  first  proposed  in  the 
South  there  immediately  appeared  one  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  its 
adoption.  It  soon  became  evident  to  the  Southerners  that,  in  disfranchising  the 
illiterate  Negroes  by  the  imposition  of  educational  qualifications,  they  would 
also  have  to  disfranchise  no  small  part  of  their  white  population — that  part, 
namely,  which  was  below  any  educational  standards  high  enough  to  shut  out 
the  great  mass  of  the  Negroes.  This  was  a serious  matter,  indeed,  as  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  percentage  of  illiterates  in  the  white  population  over  ten 
years  of  age  in  the  Southern  States  was  12  per  cent,  in  1900.  To  expect 
such  a proportion  of  the  white  voters  to  disfranchise  themselves  solely  for  the 
sake  of  excluding  the  Negroes  was  certainly  to  expect  too  much.  What,  then, 
was  to  be  done?  Obviously,  some  way  must  be  found  by  which  the  illiterate 
Negroes  should  be  disfranchised  and  yet  the  ballot  retained  for  the  illiterate 
whites.  Southern  ingenuity  and  the  supposed  necessities  of  the  situation  soon 
solved  the  riddle,  and  to-day,  without  going  into  details,  we  find  in  general 
two  distinct  modes  by  which  this  distinction  between  the  white  and  the  black 
voters  is  accomplished.  First,  the  law  provides  an  educational  qualification 
for  voters,  with  an  ‘'understanding”  clause  for  the  ignorant  whites.  This 

device  is  exemplified  best  in  Mississippi  and  South  Carolina.  In  the  former 

State  the  Constitution  of  1 890,  after  providing  that  every  male  inhabitant 
after  a certain  term  of  residence  within  the  State  shall  have  the  right  to  vote, 
makes  the  all-important  reservation  in  section  244  that,  in  addition,  ‘‘every 
elector  shall  be  able  to  read  any  section  of  the  Constitution,  or  he  shall  be  able 
to  understand' the  same  when  read  to  him,  or  give  a reasonable  interpretation 
thereof.”  The  application  of  such  a law  as  this  of  Mississippi  is  simplicity 
itself.  An  ignorant  white,  unable  to  read,  is  given  to  interpret  some  such 

clause  of  the  Constitution  as  that  providing  that  the  State  Legislature  shall 

consist  of  two  houses;  and,  unless  the  applicant  for  registration  be  an  idiot,  he 
of  course  passes  the  test  with  flying  colors.  An  illiterate  Negro  now  appears, 
in  identically  the  same  predicament  as  his  white  neighbor.  The  registration 
officer,  seeing  his  black  skin,  gives  him  to  interpret  some  such  clause  as  that 
providing  for  ex  post  facto  laws,  or  that  defining  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus , 
which  a practised  lawyer  would  find  it  difficult  to  explain  clearly  and  fully, 
with  the  inevitable  result  that  the  Negro  is  declared  disqualified.  The  registra- 
tion officer,  in  other  words,  is,  by  this  so-called  “understanding”  clause,  given 
absolute  powers  of  disqualification,  and  finds  it  entirely  possible,  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  to  give  a vote  to  the  white  stevedore,  who  never  read  a word  or 
wrote  a sentence  in  his  life,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  deny  this  vote  to  a 
black  college  graduate. 


THE  “GRANDFATHER”  CLAUSE 

But  this  mode  of  discrimination  between  white  and  black,  as  the  earlier, 
is  also  the  more  cumbersome  and  ineffective.  The  second  mode  of  dis- 
franchising the  Negroes,  to  which  I referred  a moment  ago,  gets  at  the  desired 
result  with  far  greater  expedition  and  surety.  This  second  mode  provides  an 
educational  qualification,  like  the  first,  but  has  in  addition  the  famous  “grand- 
father” clause  for  illiterate  whites.  This  is  best  exemplified  in  Louisiana 
and  North  Carolina.  The  Constitution  of  Louisiana,  for  instance,  after 
making  the  usual  educational,  property  and  residence  qualifications,  provides 
that  “no  male  person  who  was  on  January  1,  1867,  or  at  any  date  prior 
thereto,  entitled  to  vote,  ....  or  no  son  or  grandson  of  any  such 
person  ....  shall  be  denied  the  right  to  register  and  vote  by  reason 
of  his  failure  to  possess  the  educational  or  property  qualifications  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution.”  Inasmuch  as  nobody  but  a white  person  could  vote 
prior  to  January  1,  1867,  it  is  obvious  at  a glance  that  this  Louisiana  Con- 
stitution, while  rigidly  disfranchising  Negroes  by  its  educational  qualifications, 
at  the  same  time,  through  the  medium  of  this  so-called  “grandfather”  clause, 
retains  the  ballot  for  all  whites,  whether  they  be  educated  or  otherwise. 
Under  such  a clause  it  is  impossible  for  a registration  officer  to  enfranchise  a 
Negro,  and  equally  impossible  for  him  to  disfranchise  a white.  Even  while 
our  cheeks  burn  with  indignation  at  the  iniquitous  injustice  of  such  a measure, 
we  cannot  help  admiring  its  masterful  adaptation  of  means  to  ends. 


THE  NEGRO  VOTE 

Here,  now,  in  this  very  brief  and  simple  statement  of  the  provisions  of 
the  various  disfranchisement  laws  of  the  South,  do  we  have  the  story  of  how 
they  work  to  the  disadvantage  of  every  man  who  has  a black  skin.  Nor  is 
this  any  mere  theorizing  upon  my  part,  as  may  be  shown  by  a few  figures 
revealing  the  astounding  results  of  these  provisions.  In  1876,  in  the  period 
of  Negro  domination,  the  black  vote  in  Louisiana  was  75,315;  in  1898,  one 
year  after  the  passage  of  the  constitutional  enactment,  in  spite  of  the  immense 
increase  of  population,  the  vote  had  dwindled  to  5,667;  in  1876,  in  South 
Carolina,  the  black  vote  amounted  to  92,081,  in  1898  it  was  only  2,823; 
in  1876,  in  Mississippi,  the  black  vote  was  52,705,  in  1898  it  was  a paltry 
3,573.  If  fairly  administered  upon  a sound  basis  of  educational  qualifica- 
tions, the  enactment  of  these  laws  would  of  course  have  meant  a very  substantial 
reduction  of  the  Negro  vote  in  each  one  of  these  States.  But  any  such 
reduction  as  this  which  I have  indicated  is  absurd,  as  is  impressively  shown 
by  the  illiteracy  figures  of  the  census  of  1 900.  Thus  in  Louisiana,  where  the 
Negro  vote  was  reduced  in  one  year  over  92  per  cent.,  and  this  without 
taking  into  account  at  all  the  increase  of  the  population  in  twenty  years, 

8 


the  percentage  of  illiteracy  was  only  61  per  cent.  In  Mississippi,  where  the 
Negro  vote,  by  the  administration  of  these  laws,  was  reduced  93  per  cent., 
the  percentage  of  illiteracy  was  only  49. 1 per  cent.  And  in  South  Carolina, 
where  the  Negro  vote  was  reduced  almost  97  per  cent.,  the  percentage  of 
illiterates  among  the  blacks  was  only  32  per  cent.  Such  figures  as  these 
show  us  that  the  Negro  in  the  South  to-day  is  disfranchised  almost  as 
effectively  as  before  the  Civil  War,  and  disfranchised  not  because  of  illiteracy, 
but  because  of  color. 

* 

THE  BALLOT  AND  DEMOCRACY 

« Now,  just  here,  in  this  statement  of  the  provisions  of  the  disfranchise- 

ment laws,  and  in  these  figures  which  show  the  actual  working  of  these  laws, 
do  we  have  a perfectly  clear  revelation  of  the  damnable  iniquity  of  this  whole 
business.  The  story  which  here  is  told  of  the  disfranchisement  of  one  great 
portion  of  our  population  might  seem  possible  in  darkest  Russia,  but  seems 
literally  inconceivable  in  democratic  America  one  hundred  and  thirty-four 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  forty-seven 
years  after  the  announcement  of  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation.  For 
the  one  thing  for  which  our  country  stands,  as  we  like  to  think,  is  free  govern- 
ment, and  the  very  essence  of  that  freedom  in  government  is  the  exercise  by 
all  men  of  the  right  of  franchise.  The  ballot  is  the  instrument  of  democracy, 
and  the  ballot  box  is  its  symbol.  All  the  long  battles  for  political  freedom 
have  centered  around  this  very  question  of  voting.  Ever  since  the  year  1 832 
the  English  people  have  slowly  but  surely  been  building  in  their  nation,  amid 
all  its  inheritance  of  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  the  fabric  of  free  government, 
and  every  forward  step  in  this  great  struggle  has  been  signalized  by  the 
extension  of  the  right  of  franchise  to  larger  and  larger  sections  of  the  popula- 
tion. To-day  political  democracy  has  truly  been  won  in  England,  and  now, 
this  victory  secured,  we  find  them  advancing  into  the  greater  battle  for 
industrial  democracy.  In  much  the  same  way  we  see  the  fight  being  joined 
at  this  moment  in  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia  for  true  political  democracy,  and 
the  fight  here  centers  around  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  all  men,  regard- 
less of  social  standing  or  property  qualifications.  It  is  only  a few  years  since 
Russia  seemed  to  be  on  the  verge  of  a great  political  revolution,  and  there, 
as  in  Prussia  and  England,  the  fight  centered  around  the  demands  of  the 
peasantry  for  the  right  to  vote  for  their  representatives  in  Parliament.  And 
so  in  this  country,  when  the  Negro  was  freed  from  the  bonds  of  slavery,  by 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  and  when  this  freedom,  as  was  then  thought, 
had  been  constitutionally  secured  by  the  passage  of  the  1 3th  amendment  in 
1863,  the  statesmen  of  that  era  realized  that  the  freedom  which  had  been 
bought  at  so  dear  a price  was  literally  worth  nothing  unless  there  went  with 
it  the  right  to  every  Negro  to  exercise  the  franchise.  The  passage  of  the 

9 


14th  and  15th  amendments  granting  the  vote  to  the  colored  man  of  the  South 
may  not  have  been  a wise  piece  of  statesmanship — it  may  be  true  that  from 
the  standpoint  of  expediency  it  hindered  rather  than  furthered  the  uplift  of 
the  Negro  population — but  I for  one  confess  that  I glory  in  the  enactment  of 
those  constitutional  amendments,  since  their  adoption  showed  once  and  for  all 
to  the  world  that  the  representatives  of  American  democracy  understood  that, 
in  affairs  political,  liberty  means  the  right  to  vote  and  to  be  represented  in  the 
machinery  of  governmental  administration.  “The  ballot,”  says  William  A. 

Sinclair  in  that  stirring  book  of  his,  “The  Aftermath  of  Slavery,”  “is  the  * 

citadel  of  the  colored  man’s  safety ; the  guarantor  of  his  liberty ; the  protector 

of  his  rights;  the  defender  of  his  immunities  and  privileges;  the  savior  of  the 

fruits  of  his  toil;  his  weapon  of  offence  and  defence;  his  peacemaker;  his  * 

Nemesis  that  watches  and  guards  over  him  with  sleepless  eye  by  day  and  by 

night.  With  the  ballot  the  Negro  is  a man;  an  American  among  Americans. 

Without  the  ballot  he  is  a serf,  less  than  a slave;  a thing.” 

REASONABLE  RESTRICTION  OF  THE  BALLOT 

This  is  definitely  true,  and  hence  the  iniquity  of  the  disfranchisement 
of  the  Negro.  This  does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  all  disfranchisement  for 
any  reason  whatsoever  is  wrong  under  a democratic  form  of  government.  Not 
at  all.  I for  one  believe  most  emphatically  in  the  limitation  of  the  right  of 
suffrage;  and  this  for  the  proper  safeguarding  of  our  free  institutions.  But 
there  are  three  conditions  of  such  limitation  which  must  be  observed  if  justice 
is  to  be  done  and  the  principles  of  true  democracy  observed.  In  the  first 
place,  disfranchisement  must  be  along  horizontal  and  not  vertical  lines.  This 
means  that  the  restrictions  upon  the  suffrage  must  be  of  such  a character  as 
to  apply  indiscriminately  to  all  classes  of  the  population  without  regard  to 
“race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.”  Thus,  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts limits  the  suffrage  to  those  who  can  read  and  write;  but  this  restriction, 
as  I need  not  point  out,  applies  to  the  white  man  as  absolutely  as  it  does  to 
the  black  man.  In  the  second  place,  the  restrictions  placed  upon  the  suffrage 
must  be  such  as  can  be  overcome  by  the  easy  effort  of  any  intelligent  and 
ambitious  man.  That  is  to  say,  the  conditions  of  disfranchisement  must  be 
artificial  and  not  natural.  Here,  again,  the  educational  qualification  for 
voters  which  is  in  operation  in  Massachusetts  is  a case  in  point.  The  require- 
ment that  the  voter  shall  read  and  write  is  a purely  artificial  requirement, 
determined  by  the  necessities  of  efficient  government.  And  since  it  is  artificial, 
it  can  be  overcome  by  any  man  who  desires  to  give  time  and  strength  to  meet- 
ing its  demands.  And  in  the  third  place,  the  State,  in  limiting  its  suffrage  by 
artificial  restrictions,  is  thereby  in  duty  bound  to  do  everything  within  its 
power  to  make  it  possible  for  all  disfranchised  voters  to  become  capable  of 
passing  the  test  exacted.  Thus  in  Massachusetts  the  test  is  educational,  and 

10 


for  this  reason  Massachusetts  feels  herself  to  be  in  honor  bound  to  establish 
a perfect  system  of  public  school  education,  so  that  there  may  be  no  man 
within  the  bounds  of  the  commonwealth  who  does  not  know  how  to  read  and 
write,  and  therefore  is  not  able  to  pass  the  test  of  the  franchise. 

Now,  the  iniquity  and  injustice  of  the  disfranchisement  laws  of  the  South 
lie  in  the  fact  that  they  run  along  vertical  and  not  horizontal  lines.  A man 
is  disfranchised,  not  because  he  cannot  meet  the  educational  demands  of  the 
law,  but  because  he  has  a black  skin,  and  his  father  did  not  chance  to  vote 
previous  to  January,  1867.  In  the  second  place,  the  restrictions  placed 
upon  the  franchise  by  these  Southern  laws  are  natural  and  not  artificial,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  overcome  by  any  disfranchised  citizen.  It  is  as  impossible 
for  a Negro  to  change  the  color  of  his  skin  as  for  the  leopard  to  change  his 
spots,  and  therefore  the  black  man,  disfranchised  by  “understanding”  clauses 
and  “grandfather”  clauses,  finds  that  there  is  nothing  that  he  can  do  that  will 
enable  him  to  become  a voter.  And  third,  the  Southern  States — granted  that 
the  educational  requirements  of  their  laws  were  fairly  administered  to  white 
and  black  alike,  which  of  course  is  not  the  case — are  doing  little  or  nothing 
to  enable  the  black  man  to  meet  these  educational  requirements.  The  public 
school  system  in  the  South,  so  far  as  the  black  man  is  concerned,  is  a roaring 
farce ; and  I believe  that  there  is  nothing  that  stands  so  much  in  the  way  of  the 
establishment  of  an  adequate  educational  system  for  the  Southern  black  as 
the  fear  that  the  Negroes  may  become  able  to  pass  even  the  test  of  the 
“understanding”  clause,  and  thereby  become  voters. 

THE  BETRAYAL  OF  DEMOCRACY 

The  injustice,  therefore,  of  the  Southern  laws  of  disfranchisement  is  to 
be  found  in  the  first  place  in  the  simple  fact  that  it  is  a betrayal  of  the  ideals 
of  democracy  and  a gross  subversion  of  the  principles  of  free  government. 
An  entire  class  is  outlawed  from  the  State,  a whole  people  is  taxed  without 
representation,  an  entire  race  is  condemned  to  perpetual  serfdom.  If  the 
equality  of  men  means  anything,  it  means  equality  of  opportunity,  and  if 
equality  of  opportunity  means  anything  in  terms  of  politics  or  government,  it 
means  the  equal  opportunity  of  every  man  to  cast  one  vote  to  decide  the  issues 
of  administration,  and  to  elect  representatives  in  Legislature  and  Congress. 
We  realize  that  we  have  at  least  the  beginnings  of  a truly  democratic  govern- 
ment here  in  America  when,  upon  election  day,  we  see  rich  and  poor,  high  and 
low,  men  of  every  race  and  color  and  condition,  walking  side  by  side  to  the 
same  ballot  box  and  casting  into  that  ballot  box  a ballot,  which,  regardless 
of  the  man  casting  it,  counts  one  in  the  determination  of  the  political  issue 
which  is  at  stake.  If  one  man,  competent  to  know  at  all  what  he  is  doing, 
is  denied  the  right  to  stand  by  that  ballot  box  upon  a plane  of  perfect  equality 
with  all  his  fellows,  and  denied  this  right  upon  grounds  for  which  he  is  not 


responsible  and  which  he  cannot  by  any  personal  effort  overcome,  free  govern- 
ment is  to  that  extent  subverted.  What  would  we  think  if  a law  should  be 
passed  disfranchising  a man  because  he  is  a Jew?  What  would  we  think 
if  a Republican  Legislature  of  New  York  should  disfranchise  all  of  the 
political  districts  of  Tammany  East  Side?  Why,  we  should  cry  that 
democracy  was  at  an  end  and  free  government  destroyed;  and  yet  it  is  exactly 
this  thing  which  is  done  to-day  in  the  majority  of  the  Southern  States. 


DEFIANCE  OF  LAW 

But  there  is  a second  result  of  the  workings  of  these  disfranchisement 
laws  of  the  South  which  is  even  more  serious  than  that  of  which  I have  just 
spoken.  I refer  to  the  fact  that  these  laws  involve  not  merely  the  subversion 
of  our  free  government,  but  the  subversion  of  all  government  whatsoever. 

These  laws — if  I may  be  pardoned  the  apparent  contradiction — mean 
anarchy;  and  the  Southern  statesmen  who  have  written  them  upon  their  statute 
books  are  the  most  dangerous  anarchists  with  which  our  country  has  to  deal. 

If  any  statement  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  perfectly  clear — 
if  any  portion  of  that  Constitution  was  adopted  by  the  united  sentiment  of  a 
great  people — if  any  paragraph  was  formulated  to  meet  a perfectly  definite 
situation — it  is  the  15th  amendment,  which  specifically  denies  to  the  United 
States,  or  to  any  State,  the  right  to  abridge  the  franchise  “because  of  race, 
color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.”  And  here  to-day  do  we  find  this 
sacred  provision  of  our  Constitution,  which  is  written  in  letters  of  blood, 
openly  defied  by  a half  dozen  or  more  of  the  sovereign  States  of  America. 

I do  not  believe  that  I have  aay  more  respect  for  this  somewhat  antiquated 
Constitution  than  the  next  man.  I believe  that  there  are  few  things  more 
dangerous  to  national  progress  than  the  foolish  worship  of  this  instrument 
which  now  possesses  the  hearts  of  the  great  mass  of  our  population.  I believe 
that  the  Constitution  is  more  and  more  coming  to  be  a stumbling  block  in 
the  path  of  the  nation.  I know  of  nothing  more  farcically  ridiculous  than  the 
solemn  attempts  of  our  Supreme  Court  to  decide  as  to  whether  some  elaborate 
piece  of  legislation  regarding  railroads  or  corporations  is  consistent  with  a 
governmental  instrument  which  was  drawn  up  to  meet  the  conditions  of  1787. 

I would  gladly  see  the  whole  thing  cast  into  a melting  pot  and  a new  one 

moulded  to  meet  the  needs  of  here  and  now.  But  I recognize  no  less  fully 

the  absolute  necessity  of  obeying  the  present  Constitution  until  we  have  a new 

and  better  one.  And  while  it  may  be  little  short  of  impossible  to  tell  whether  ^ 

or  not  an  interstate  commerce  law  is  constitutional  (and  such  a question  is 

usually  decided  in  the  Supreme  Court  by  a five  to  four  vote),  I believe  that 

it  is  not  impossible  to  tell  whether  or  not  a Southern  disfranchisement  law  is  ^ 

constitutional. 


12 


THE  FAILURE  OF  THE  COURTS 

Say  what  you  will,  the  Constitution  declares  that  the  franchise  shall  not 
be  denied  to  a man  because  he  is  black — and,  say  what  you  will,  these 
Southerners  declare  that  the  franchise  shall  be  denied  to  a man  because  he 
is  black.  To  be  sure,  these  laws  do  not  provide  this  in  so  many  words;  but 
this  is  what  they  intend  to  do,  and  what  they  succeed  in  doing  most  admir- 
ably. Never  were  means  adapted  to  ends  with  more  diabolical  cleverness. 
And  yet  the  courts  cannot  or  will  not  interfere.  What  we  need  is  a little  more 
common  sense  in  our  administration  of  justice,  which  shall  enable  the  courts 
to  cling  less  closely  to  the  “letter  which  killeth,”  else  will  anarchy  be  every- 
where triumphant  and  orderly  government  at  an  end.  Professor  Ross,  in  his 
recent  book,  entitled  “Latter-day  Saints  and  Sinners,”  declared  that  the 
defiance  of  law  through  the  mockeries  of  judicial  interpretation  is  one  of  the 
greatest  perils  to  American  society  to-day.  To  illustrate  his  meaning  he  cites 
a case  “in  an  Oregon  city”  where  two  men  beat  a woman  on  the  street  with 
a heavy  strap.  They  were  convicted  by  a jury  under  a statute  which  pro- 
vided that  “if  any  person  shall  assault  and  beat  another  with  a cowhide,  whip, 
stick,  or  like  thing,  such  person  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the 
penitentiary  not  less  than  one  nor  more  than  ten  years.”  And  then  he  tells  us 
how  the  case  was  appealed,  and  the  men  acquitted  by  the  Supreme  Court  on 
the  plea  that  the  statute  “contained  nothing  to  bring  the  strap  within  the  class 
of  instruments  mentioned  under  cowhide,  whip,  stick,  or  like  thing.”  This  is 
a convincing  illustration  of  this  legal  anarchy — but  ten  times  more  convincing, 
to  my  mind,  are  the  wonderful  laws  which  deny  a man  the  franchise  because 
his  grandfather  did  not  vote  before  January,  1867,  and  yet  do  not  conflict 
with  the  constitutional  provision  that  no  State  shall  abridge  the  right  to  vote 
“because  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.”  If  these  laws 
are  to  stand — if  no  President  or  Congress  or  Supreme  Court  can  be  found  to 
resist  these  acts  of  nullification,  then  we  might  as  well  admit  that  our  govern- 
ment is  at  an  end,  save  as  an  instrument  of  oppression,  and  the  liberties  of  none 
of  us  are  safe. 

DISFRANCHISEMENT  AND  RELIGION 

But  there  is  still  another  result  of  these  disfranchisement  laws,  which 
means  much  to  me  and  ought  to  mean  much  to  every  serious  man.  I mean 
their  wanton  and  arrogant  defiance  of  the  ideals  of  our  religion.  I know  that 
it  is  not  common  to-day  to  bring  religious  principles  into  consideration  of  such 
practical  questions  as  this.  But  if  I am  myself  a minister  for  any  one  reason, 
it  is  because  I believe  with  all  my  heart  and  soul  that  religion  is  the  greatest 
thing  in  the  world,  and,  ultimately  considered,  is  the  commanding  factor  in 
every  human  relation.  No  problem  is  settled,  said  Wendell  Phillips,  till  it  is 
settled  right — which,  being  interpreted,  means  that  no  problem  is  settled  until 


it  is  settled  in  harmony  with  those  eternal  and  universal  ideals  of  truth  which 
we  mean  by  the  idea  of  God.  Now,  if  there  is  any  religious  truth  which 
is  fundamental,  it  is  that  of  the  brotherhood  of  man — and  we  are  all  agreed 
that  religion  will  never  have  fulfilled  its  appointed  task  upon  the  earth  until  the 
ideal  of  human  brotherhood  is  everywhere  recognized  and  established.  And 
we  are  also  all  agreed — those  at  least  who  have  studied  the  question  from 
the  higher  religious  point  of  view — that  the  only  definite  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  the  realization  of  this  coveted  brotherhood  is  that  peculiar  psychological 
feeling  which  nobody  can  explain  or  define,  and  which,  for  lack  of  a better 
word,  I must  call  “prejudice.”  By  this  I mean  a kind  of  inborn,  instinctive 
antipathy  which  one  race  cherishes  for  another  race,  one  nationality  for  another 
nationality,  one  individual  for  another  individual.  Nobody  can  give  any 
satisfactory  reason  for  the  existence  of  these  antipathies,  and  the  person  holding 
them  is  the  last  person  in  the  world  to  be  able  to  justify  his  feelings  upon  a 
basis  of  rationality.  But  the  prejudice  is  there,  irrational,  absurd,  and  yet 
one  of  the  elemental  and  momentous  facts  of  human  life.  The  young  child, 
without  any  training — in  sheer  caprice — will  manifest  the  most  violent  antipathy 
for  certain  other  human  beings  and  even  for  certain  animals.  And  this  quality 
of  prejudice  is  carried  over  with  us  into  mature  life  and  becomes  one  of  the 
most  distinctive  characteristics  of  our  individualities.  And  the  catastrophe 
comes  when  these  antipathies  are  confined  not  merely  to  individuals,  but 
become  characteristics  of  social  groups,  and  are  regarded  not  as  merely  per- 
sonal and  more  or  less  ridiculous  whims  or  fancies,  and  so  treated,  but  are 
regarded  as  phenomena  of  scientific  meaning.  Now  it  is  this  senseless  prejudice 
which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  existing  alienation  between  the  white  man  and  the 
black.  Endless  attempts  have  been  made  to  justify  this  antipathy  upon  historical 
and  scientific  grounds.  It  has  been  argued  a thousand  times  that  the  Negro 
is  of  an  inferior  race,  that  he  is  incapable  of  civilized  development,  that  he  is 
nearer  to  the  stage  of  the  animal  than  the  human,  and  must  always  so  remain. 
But  none  of  these  serious  attempts  to  dignify  and  explain  this  absurd  prejudice 
has  ever  succeeded,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  has  no  more  basis  in  actual 
fact  that  a woman’s  dread  of  a mouse,  or  a cat’s  hostility  to  a dog.  Indeed, 
if  we  want  to  understand  the  whole  illusory  character  of  this  prejudice  of  the 
Southern  white  man  against  the  black  man,  we  only  have  to  watch  to-day 
the  growing  prejudice  of  our  fellow-citizens  on  the  Pacific  Coast  against  the 
yellow  man.  The  Westerners  have  no  antipathy  for  the  Negro,  any  more 
than  the  Southerners  have  antipathy  for  the  Japanese — and  yet  each  justifies 
his  absurd  illusion  by  exactly  the  same  arguments  of  racial  inferiority  and 
degradation.  Prejudice ! Prejudice  against  races,  nations,  classes,  individuals 
— it  is  this  which  hopelessly  divides  mankind  and  makes  human  brotherhood 
seemingly  impossible. 


SCIENCE  AND  PREJUDICE 

Josiah  Royce,  of  Harvard,  one  of  the  leading  psychologists  of  our  time, 
made  an  elaborate  study  of  this  matter  of  prejudice  a few  years  ago,  and 
pronounced  it  a pure  “illusion,”  not  to  be  “sanctified  by  the  name  of  science.” 
He  recognized  that  it  was  these  senseless  antipathies  which  were  behind  nearly 
all  racial  hatreds,  class  hatreds,  religious  hatreds,  and  admitted  that  they  must 
for  long  play  their  part  in  human  history.  “But,”  he  continued,  “what  we 
can  do  about  them  is  to  try  not  to  be  fooled  by  them — not  to  take  them 
seriously.  We  can  remember  that  they  are  childish  phenomena  in  our  lives, 
phenomena  on  a level  with  a dread  of  snakes,  or  of  mice,  phenomena  which  we 
share  with  the  cats  and  dogs,  not  noble  phenomena,  but  silly  caprices  of  our 
complex  natures.” 

Now,  it  is  to  my  mind  the  crowning  iniquity  of  these  laws  of  dis- 
franchisement, which  we  are  discussing,  that  they  take  up  these  “silly  caprices,” 
as  Professor  Royce  well  calls  them,  and  make  of  them  the  basis  of  govern- 
ment and  the  condition  of  organized  society,  and  thereby  make  a mockery  of 
the  religion  of  human  brotherhood  which  we  profess  to  practice.  Nay,  do 
more  than  this — use  all  the  power  of  the  State  to  make  impossible  the  realiza- 
tion of  this  supreme  religious  ideal.  For  while  I believe  that  the  Negro  is  in 
no  way  constitutionally  inferior  to  the  white — while  I believe  that  he  is 
capable  of  endless  development  in  all  civilized  practices  and  achievements — 
while  I believe  that  the  door  is  open  to  him  into  all  the  realms  of  music,  art, 
poetry,  religion,  I also  believe  that  the  erection  of  a foolish  prejudice  into  a 
basis  of  government  and  a condition  of  social  organization,  which  is  the 
immediate  result  of  disfranchisement  laws,  is  bound  to  degrade  the  Negro, 
to  reduce  him  to  a level  of  inferiority  where  he  does  not  naturally  belong,  and 
thus  shut  him  out  forever  from  the  circle  of  the  human  family.  You  may 
educate  the  Negro  industrially  for  a thousand  years — you  may  teach  him  to 
grow  the  best  sweet  potatoes  in  the  Western  hemisphere — you  may  make 
him  supremely  efficient  as  a “hewer  of  wood  and  drawer  of  water,”  but  if 
you  refuse  to  him  the  equal  rights  of  citizenship,  you  perpetuate  and  sanctify 
prejudice,  and  thus  postpone  indefinitely  all  hope  of  that  human  brotherhood 
of  which  every  true  prophet  has  dreamed,  and  for  which  every  true  servant  of 
humanity  has  bravely  labored.  My  friends,  when  all  things  have  been  said 
and  done,  I denounce  the  disfranchisement  of  the  Negro  because  it  prostitutes 
the  State  to  the  shameful  work  of  mocking  and  paralyzing  the  religion  that 
I preach. 

THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT 
OF  COLORED  PEOPLE 

Here,  now,  are  some  of  the  results  of  disfranchisement  of  the  Negro. 
First,  the  subversion  of  the  ideals  of  political  democracy;  second,  the  anar- 


0112 


3 


361 587975 


J 


chistic  destruction  of  the  fabric  of  our  American  government,  uiird,  the 
nullifying  of  the  true  ideals  of  absolute  religion.  Other  results  are  obvious 
— these  are  the  ones  which  interest  me.  And  what  can  we  do  about 
it?  Some  may  say  one  thing,  some  another.  I offer  but  one  method  of 
crusading — the  one  that  interests  me  as  a preacher.  We  can  agitate,  discuss, 
denounce,  trouble,  America  to-day,  as  Elijah  of  old  troubled  Israel.  We  can 
keep  up  the  agitation  against  this  insidious  form  of  slavery,  as  Garrison  and 
Phillips  and  Parker,  in  the  face  of  the  most  bitter  and  cruel  opposition, 
kept  up  the  agitation  against  the  earlier  and  more  obvious  form  of  slavery. 
We  can  keep  this  abomination  before  the  people,  knowing  for  our  confidence 
and  hope,  that  a straight  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the  American  people 
has  never  yet  failed  of  response.  And  it  is  to  this  work  of  keeping  it  before 
the  people  that  I trust  this  Association  may  dedicate  itself. 


Publications  of  the  National  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Colored  People.  Price  5 cents;  $3.00  per  hundred.  Address  26  Vesey 
Street,  New  York. 


